From the Oregon Catholic Conference on today's ruling

"The Oregon Catholic Conference is deeply grieved by Judge Michael McShane's ruling to redefine marriage. It is a travesty of justice that marriage, as the foundation of society, received no defense in the U.S. District Court. Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, in an extreme dereliction of her sworn duty to uphold the law, refused to represent the interests and the people of Oregon. It is a sad day for democracy when one federally appointed judge can overturn, without any representation, the express will of the people of Oregon.
Despite the judge's ruling, authentic marriage remains what it has always and only been according to God's design: the loving union between one man and one woman for the mutual benefit of the two who have become one flesh and any children born of their union. Redefining marriage confuses the true purpose and meaning of marriage. An act deliberately ensuring that more children will grow up motherless or fatherless is not an act of love. The Oregon Catholic Conference will continue to uphold the true meaning of marriage and advocate for genuine marriages and families in Oregon, and it urges all people of good will to continue to reject the flawed notion that a pairing of two people of the same gender constitutes a marriage. "

Mr. McMenamin failed to cite the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

How does a Federal Judge overturn Oregon's Constitution sighting Violation of The Fourtenth Amendment and Our Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum will not do her job. When Ms. Rosenblum voted against the 14th Amendment when she served on the Oregon Court of Appeals. JURISDICTION::
This action concerns non-custodial parents’
due-process rights in legal matters that affect their
children generally and those rights in the context of
the custodial parent’s decision to change the
children’s names specifically. Pet. at 2. Ms. Ewing
protests that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
these issues because Mr. McMenamin failed to raise
them below. Resp.’s Br. at 2, 15-20. The entire
proceeding below concerned three due-process issues:
(1) Ms. Ewing’s benefiting from her false affidavit
stating that Mr. McMenamin had neither
supported nor resided with the children;
(2) Ms. Ewing’s failure to serve or notify Mr.
McMenamin of her name-change petition; and
(3) The trial court’s failure to follow the Oregon
Supreme Court’s binding precedent.
The jurisdictional question that Ms. Ewing asks –
but answers incorrectly – is whether these dueprocess
issues constitute a federal question if Mr.
McMenamin failed to cite the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
plus.google.com/100073774932782445025/posts/dww6r4...BQZYp

Would you refuse to patronize a store whose owner has beliefs you don’t agree with?

Another controversy has erupted over a Sellwood-Moreland business, this one over the owner’s views on gays and same-sex marriage. Located on a busy block near Southeast Milwaukie Avenue and Bybee Boulevard, the store is taking the place of a former antique shop. Remodeling has been under way for months, and anticipation of what appears to be a new, high-end place to buy food has been building. Recently, neighbors found Facebook postings by owner Chauncy Childs that brought them up short. She wrote a long post about her opposition to same-sex marriage, complaining that"a tiny minority is dictating a change of our social structure.” She said she believes that gay marriage is wrong because it is the start of a slippery slope that could eventually lead to pedophilia and bigamy. But she said those are her private religious beliefs and don’t reflect how the store will operate.
www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/owne...river

Nike forms PAC to Support Same Sex Marriage!!

Nike Inc. has formed a PAC to support marriage equality and seeded it with $280,000 from the company and its executives. The Nike Equality PAC will raise funds from Nike-affiliated donors and support marriage equality. The PAC will work closely with the Oregon United for Marriage campaign, a coalition of businesses and individuals working to earn same-sex couples the right to marry. Nike isn't a newcomer to supporting equal rights. It extended benefits to domestic partners in 2000. It supported non-discrimination legislation in 2005. If Nike Already Supports SS benefits to domestic partners and non-discrimination then why The Push For Same Sex Marriage?
www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/threads_and_lace....html

Why Marriage Matters!!

A wealth of examples have been identified by legal scholars who have pointed out the conflicts that will arise between the rights of people who sincerely disagree with homosexual marriage, and the rights of homosexual couples to demand that the state enforce gay marriage whether people support it or not. These conflicts can result in people losing their jobs, professionals be stripped of their professional licenses or being fined by the state, and churches losing their tax exemptions. Most troubling is the impact on children, particularly as the public schools begin the process of indoctrinating them on the subject of homosexual marriage.
www.protectmarriageoregon.com/why-marriage-matters

Mayo Clinic employees must marry to keep getting same-sex partner benefits

"I keep seeing "warnings" from gay rights groups, about places where gay marriage is now legal and employers are now requiring domestic partners to marry in order to continue receiving spousal benefits. Frankly, I don't see the problem with this. The LGBT crowd wanted spousal benefits because you weren't allowed to marry - so you got them. Then LGBT wanted to just be able to marry - so you got that. Now your argument for spousal benefits without marriage is no longer applicable. You can't have EVERYTHING. You wanted the same treatment as straight people. You got it. Now live with it!" By David Guliver
www.postbulletin.com/news/politics/mayo-clinic-emp....html

Pledge to Hold Politicians Accountable for Redefining Marriage

"I keep seeing "warnings" from gay rights groups, about places where gay marriage is now legal and employers are now requiring domestic partners to marry in order to continue receiving spousal benefits. Frankly, I don't see the problem with this. The LGBT crowd wanted spousal benefits because you weren't allowed to marry - so you got them. Then LGBT wanted to just be able to marry - so you got that. Now your argument for spousal benefits without marriage is no longer applicable. You can't have EVERYTHING. You wanted the same treatment as straight people. You got it. Now live with it!" By David Guliver
www.postbulletin.com/news/politics/mayo-clinic-emp....html